LIVE Coverage of Court Case - Dixie Carter vs Billy Corgan for TNA ownership!

[Theo Dious]

I think TNA would have quite a job proving that they can pay him what they owe considering all of the other stuff going on.

[Dark One]

Originally Posted by Theo Dious I think TNA would have quite a job proving that they can pay him what they owe considering all of the other stuff going on.

They can't pay him on their own, but Aroluxe (I think) is willing to buy them and pay Corgan back in the process.

From what I understand, Corgan would rather he has it than them, so he's trying to prove insolvency to take Dixie's company control prior to that happening and preventing them from buying it. If she can get someone to buy it and pay him off, he'd theoretically lose all claim from what I understand. He's trying to prevent that by using a trigger in their agreement. The question is really whether or not the fact that they can't pay him back on their own makes them insolvent and means he can pull that trigger. That's the big reason they're trying so hard to prove they are or aren't.

There's also a chance the agreement itself may not be legal, depending on which type it actually is.

Those are the few questions:
1) Are they actually insolvent?
2) Does someone willing to buy them out and pay back Corgan mean Corgan is refusing to be paid back, or can be legally claim control before that and instead refuse to sell to them?
3) Is the agreement even legal (because it's X and not Y)?

At least that's my understanding.

[BigCrippyZ]

Originally Posted by Dark One 1) Are they actually insolvent? 2) Does someone willing to buy them out and pay back Corgan mean Corgan is refusing to be paid back, or can be legally claim control before that and instead refuse to sell to them? 3) Is the agreement even legal (because it's X and not Y)?

Really good summary of the issues.

There's also the issue of whether Corgan was a TN licensed pledge lender when the loans were made. If not, he could most likely lose everything, even his principal investment money. That being said, IF his lawyer didn't know or inform him of the licensing requirements when making this deal, he could sue his attorney for malpractice and would most likely win that malpractice suit.